THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-010-RDO continued
and development of over 2,000 single family and multifamily lots. 8. The primary source leading to the Complainant’s allegations was based on miscommunication. 9. SE Design had an obligation to convey, in a clear and concise manner, various details of what their scope of work was. Some scope of work details were not clearly communicated to the client. 10. SE Design had an obligation to convey and explain in a clear and concise manner the costs of certain components of the Project. As an example, the matter of the sanitary sewer servicing for Phase VI, and the allegation that SE Design billed the Complainant $60,000 more than the original contract price: a. Although this matter may be viewed as contractual in nature, it could not be determined if SE Design effectively communicated that the original cost of the sewer servicing was a tendered price, based on preliminary engineering plans, and that it was used to enable the developer to establish costs and to arrange/schedule the contractor for summer construction. b. SE Design had an obligation to effectively communicate any contingencies that might arise during the course of work that would affect the initial contract price. This needed to be clearly communicated to the Client. c. SE Design had an obligation to effectively communicate with its client, [Company C], in a timely and appropriate manner about any potential material changes to the contract price. Panel Findings 11. The Panel determined there was insufficient evidence of unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice with respect to the Code of Ethics Rules #1, #2, #3, and #5 to refer the matter to a disciplinary hearing. 12. The investigation determined SE Design engaged in extensive communication with the Complainant. However, much of this did not adequately resolve misunderstandings between the Complainant and SE Design. Despite a great deal of back-and-forth communications, the content did not effectively
f. Whether SE Design exhibited unskilled practice for having to bury the sanitary lines an additional metre deep. g. Whether SE Design acted unprofessionally with regards to the circumstances related to the storm pond versus sceptor systems. Specifically, did SE Design disregard [Complainant B’s] preference of wanting a sceptor system? h. Whether SE Design billed [Complainant B] for the storm pond designs even though they were not wanted or required. i. Whether SE Design overbilled and/or was deceitful to [Complainant B] regarding the invoicing for electrical supplies. Specifically, billing [Complainant B] $14,000 higher than the original contracted price of $97,000. j. Whether SE Design failed to complete the sidewalk and street pavement located alongside a corner lot as per the contract. Note: The lot is located in Phase VI — on the southeast corner of [the Project D community]. The orientation of the lot was changed from facing east to facing south. 3. SE Design acted in an unprofessional manner with regards to continued correspondence with [Complainant B’s son], despite the father’s requests to cease correspondence. 4. SE Design engaged in unprofessional conduct and/ or unskilled practice that contravened Section 44(1) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. Complainant B, and Complainant B’s son] (the Client) to provide land development services for the development of 56 lots located in the [Project D community] in the Bonnyville area. 6. Issues of contention between SE Design and the Complainant ranged from contractual matters to overall allegations of unskilled practice and unprofessional conduct. 7. SE Design was competent and had the necessary means and experience to complete the land development work required for the Project, having been directly involved in the construction C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 5. SE Design was retained by [Company C,
WINTER 2017 PEG | 61
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker